Talk:Russian monitor Rusalka/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There's a mix of BrEng and AmEng, particularly in the units in the discovery section.

   The lead is a bit short - might want to include her class, that a monument was built for her crew, and perhaps a line about the exact cause of her sinking to be unknown (and perhaps that a new theory has been put forth following the discovery of the wreck)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In the monument section - Reval wasn't Tallinn until 1917

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Rusalka1890Helsimgfors.jpg - needs a US PD tag

   Why not add a picture of the Rusalka memorial and merge the two Commons boxes?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I think that I've fixed all of these, although I'm not sure what you mean about combining the Commons boxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Like so. Looks good now, passing for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know you could do that!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)